In your interview with Barney Frank (April 25) you record his spontaneous remark: “[As for] subordinated debt: ‘Why the hell is it called subordinated?’” Is anyone else troubled by the fact that the chairman of the House financial services committee does not know why some debt collection is subordinated to others? Even a retired humanities professor in Boulder, Colorado, knows that.
Ok, now professor Antal is almost certainly a wonderful human being. I imagine him in his study, writing checks to various anti-poverty campaigns while his cat, Mr. Whiskers, licks himself in front of the wood stove. In another capacity, I'm sure I would exchange pleasantries with professor Antal, as I pet Mr. Whiskers.
But no. You, sir, insulted Barney Frank, and that there's my bitch.
So, in a caffeine-induced rage, I wrote the following, with the express purpose of swearing and being a dick:
Sir, Paul Antal (Letters, May 7) wonders why Barney Frank, chairman of the House financial services committee, doesn't seem to understand the capital structure with his question: “Why the hell is it called subordinated debt?” The question of course is clearly rhetorical, and the context implies that Mr Frank thinks subordinated debt holders should line up for their “haircuts” before senior holders, otherwise why the hell bother with the classification “subordinated”? Even a 27-year-old security guard knows that.